We are pleased to give credit to patrickspeople.co.uk for the following pedigrees which we would not have had the time or patience (or ability) to work on to the extent that must have been needed. As referred to below, the genealogy of at least part of this first branch was confused by conflicting stories regarding the claiming of a baronetcy, in relation to which TCB (vol 2, p288, note (a)) reports that the 2nd edition of Roger's 'Families of Strachan' (i.e. 'Memorials') gives an entirely different account from the 1st edition produced just 4 years earlier. However, patrickspeople.co.uk appears not always to follow Memorials. We would probably show this page as DRAFT, rather than release it into the database properly (as we have done), were it not for the fact that we doubt that we will ever be able to better the work done by patrickspeople. However, we thought it wise to highlight at least a few uncertainties. For example, TCB reports 'Memorials' as suggesting that the following William (3rd son of John of Thornton) was father of James (d 1614) father of ?? (dvp) father of James (d 1651) father of 'Sir' James (d 1686).

(1) The following connections, given by patrickspeople.co.uk, should be viewed with caution. TCB reports Rogers ('Memorials') as identifying the undermentioned Sir Thomas as believed "to be son of Thomas Strachan, brother of John Strachan of Mureton, near Laurence Kirk, Farmer". However, if he was a son of James & Mary and brother of the following (Sir) James, that provides a much better explanation for the assumption of a baronetcy by James than the reported case that he assumed it from a distant connection with Sir Alexander Strachan of Thornton, Bart. If the following James was indeed 'of Thornton', it is not unlikely that his father, described on TCB (vol 2, p286) as "an opulent Burgess of Edinburgh", or he had bought (part of) Sir Alexander's estate in order to reinforce a claim to be a/the leading member of the Strachan family.
(2)
Apart from other issues, patrickspeople.co.uk and TCB contradict each other over the next few generations, not least as to which James was which. Provisionally, we hold back from taking this family any further but may review the family again in due course.